About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
's investment in foreign-policy is national security insurance. there is nothing foreign about foreign policy anymore. smartcan make the small,. w vestments upfront and avoid more costly conflicts and greater burdens down the road. , we'vepast few months seen developments underscore the state -- stakes for having a strong and -- strong american presence in the world. that was a positive step toward stability in the volatile region of the world where we need partnerships. the committee is more than immersed in suyyruiaia. we have treated millions to humanitarian relief -- we have provided millions to humanitarian relief. i expect we will talk about syria somewhat today. having returned from beijing and north koreathe issue took center stage, we are reminded once again that america is the guardian of global security. we should be proud of that. one not turn our back on keys nor will we hesitate what we need to do to defend our allies. if budget is an analyst patient of our values and priorities -- this budget is an illustration of our values and priorities. i have a record of wanting to do defi
by presidents. this is just on the domestic side. on the foreign-policy side presidents have even more power. the president plays a far larger role in the determination of u.s. policy and congress plays a far smaller role than the framers intended. the recent illustration is president obama decided our military would be involved in intervening in libya would be his decision even though congress is supposed to decide when we send troops into battle. but obama and many presidents have decided on their own without waiting for congress. presidents also reach agreements with other countries without congressional participation unilaterally decide about terminating a treaty when we change from recognizing taiwan as a government to mainland china. it was president carter who unilaterally terminated the mutual defense in taiwan. presidents decide on their own whether allowing u.s. citizens to travel abroad. it was a presidential decision. he also revived our immigration policy. when congress failed to create a path for young immigrants to be brought and -- president implemented his own d.r.e.a.m. act
issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-inter
. that is also part of what our foreign policy investments try to change. installing the rule of law. tried to help with a justice system and create accountability for these things. >> but we inhave bto mubakea they were stealing it. >> i did not make that decision. i will certainly review any program that we are engaged in now. if you have any information of some and stealing, let me know immediately. is one penny on the dollar. i can go through a long list of things we invest in that provide a return on investment. we have stopped countless plots against our countryhich h the fbi not cooperated for the cia and other entities not been creating some of the programs we and have thher thgs we work with, we never would have done it. americans would have died. they would have been blown up. but for the discovery of the people that came to these kinds of efforts, we made our country safer. so i have to tell you for the penny on the dollar, i will still make the argument anywhere even though occasionally yes, something gets abused. the -- just as it gets abused in some parts of almost every gover
that is shi w fight that is also part of what our foreign policy tries to change with the historic rule of law to help with the justice system to create accountability. >> that we're still spending -- sending money if they were stealing and. >> i did not make that decision and i will certainly review any program we are engaged in now and if you have information of what we do now let me know immediately but one thing. all of this that we do senator paul is 1 penny on the dollar. i go through long list of things that we invest in i will give you an example we have stopped countless plots against our country, which had the fbi not cooperated and the cia and other entities and had not worked with the justice system's and interpol and the other things we work with we never would have done it. americans would have died and blown up and but for the discovery of the christmas bomber which came through these efforts we made our country safer. i have to tell you for the penny on the dollar will still ma t men even know yes something is abused just as it is abused of almost evygoernment. >> win the war b
foreign policy. and there's no disagreement about that in my country, that parliament passed last year unanimously a policy, a resolution which defined the icelandic objectives in the arctic. so together with the other countries, we hope to play a constructive part, and evidence of this was that a few months ago, one of our april civil servants and officials was chosen as the first director general of the secretary of the arctic council. >> the icelandic is coming out of financial turmoil. what would you consider the future of the krona, and are you at all considering any alternative currency for iceland? >> i think it's a positive indication of how we have moved out of the financial crisis, i can come here to the press club, and only when six minutes are left, i get that question orkt financial issue. nobody would have believed that four or five years ago. but that is the state of affairs that it could perhaps come together again and talk about how we recovered from the financial crisis and how we dealt with the crisis in a different way from many other countries, how we did not follo
component of his foreign policy, and obviously, this just emphasizes that. >> [inaudible question] >> the mexicoan government has expressed its interest in that agenda. in that regard, bringing president obama to mexico, what programs can we expect along the road and secretary kerry, -- >> [inaudible] >> some countries in latin american countries were on the back burner for several years. is it your express intent to reach out to the region? >> we have agreed to enlarge our agenda, and we are going to be talking about initiatives that have to do with high level engagement into our economic dialogue. we will be talking and find a mechanism to talk in terms of the vocation, research and innovation. so those issues and structures around them will be on the agenda, and the talks, initially discussed by president obama and president nieto. >> the answer is profoundly, yes, we do intend, i intend to, personally. and, in fact, i had intended to try to travel to the region next week, but because of the events this week, and because of some other things happening, i've had to postpone that
on foreign relations, previously was a project director for the 2009 independent task force on u.s. immigration policy and previously worked at the financial times with the washington bureau chief there. from norths us now branford, connecticut on our independent line. caller: good morning. i am in disagreement with your guest. he says there is no problem on immigration. watched c-span and heard the calls come in about immigration yucca guest: -- host: they are against immigration? let's let him give his take on the immigration issue. talkinge have been about the boston issue. that is a screening history. there is a broader issue of immigration reform in washington. we have an 840 four page bill drawn up by the so-called gang of eight. hearing in the senate judiciary committee today. this is a big bill and raises issues far beyond the boston bombings. if you actually look at public opinion polls, most americans either say we have enough immigration now, or somewhat too much. it is a small minority of americans calling for more immigration. generally, americans are happy with the
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques that employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions that the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in torture, then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of, like waterboarding, stress and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel, which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in it his opinion it relies not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is in important context as to how the penny came about but also how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the avai
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10